In the above article, the following paragraph caught my attention as relevant to past and present Forum discussions.

Quote:

The report recommended steps that included tightening supervision of U.S. biological laboratories, strengthening international nuclear nonproliferation agreements and discouraging financial incentives for civilian nuclear power.

Peace to all,Ann

_________________To get the viewpoint of the other person appreciatively and profoundly and reconcile it with his own so far as possible is the supreme achievement of man and his highest vocation.Henry Nelson Wieman

In the above article, the following paragraph caught my attention as relevant to past and present Forum discussions.

Quote:

The report recommended steps that included tightening supervision of U.S. biological laboratories, strengthening international nuclear nonproliferation agreements and discouraging financial incentives for civilian nuclear power.

Peace to all,Ann

Hi Ann, Unfortunately, the more I read about the folks Obama is naming to his administration, the less hopeful it is that he will be able to begin a real change in US foreign policy or war-mongering in general. It's just another version of the same old military-industrial complex. Here is a transcript of part of an interview program. Then an article below that from one of the same writers with other details which confirm that the new retread policy makers may very well turn out to be not very different from the neo-cons. I was going to put something here from another well-informed source, Robert Sheer, but do not have time right now. Suzanne

AMY GOODMAN: Our guests are Robert Dreyfuss of the Nation and Steven Clemons at the New America Foundation, talking about the new – well what people are calling the war cabinet. In fact, just looking at the numbers, there were 130 members of the House, 23 members of the Senate who voted against war. Barack Obama did not choose one of them to be in his Cabinet. I wanted to asked Steven Clemons about Jim Jones, about the new National Security Adviser who he has chosen. Looking at a piece in the Los Angeles Times today, he is on the board of–this is General Jim Jones–he is on the board of Chevron and Boeing and has been President and Chief Executive of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s Institute for 21st Century Energy, which has been criticized by environmental groups. “They have a reprehensible record,” said Frank O’Donnell-the outspoken leader of Clean Air Watch- of the institute led by Jones. The institute calls for the immediate expansion of domestic oil and gas production, nuclear energy and clean coal technology, in addition to investment in renewable and alternative energy sources. O’Donnell criticized institute reports under Jones that challenged the use of the Clean Air Act to combat global warming and the right of states such as California to impose environmental standards that go beyond those set by the federal government. O’Donnell said “Since global warming is a security threat, this election raises a real eyebrow”. He asks, “Will Jones be predisposed to compromise the new administration’s environmental agenda both at home in the international arena? Stay tuned.” Steven Clemons?

STEVEN CLEMONS: Oh I think it is a legitimate question. There is no doubt General Jones is a leading member of what you would classically call in Eisenhower’s sense, the military-industrial complex. Barack Obama is making a very conscious decision to bring in someone like Jones who has a sort of profile he does with Chevron and Boeing with large firms that are part of the defense industry. He also has other parts of this profile where as you mentioned, Supreme Commander of NATO he was the Middle East envoy for defense- sort of looking at national security issues from the Middle East region. And so, when you look at any one of the profiles, you can move on Hillary Clinton, or even Bob Gates, I think Bob Dreyfuss characterized Bob Gates pretty well,–I think that Gates is an unusual choice. I was prepared to oppose him staying on for a variety of reasons. Mostly because why would you want a guy who played a certain important role in out-Cheneying Cheney in my view, in the Bush Administration. Why would you want that sort of constraint in a new forward leaping, forward looking Obama cabinet? But, I’ve grown in a different direction—

...INTERESTING PARTS HERE BUT TAKEN OUT TO MAKE POST NOT TOO LONG...

AMY GOODMAN: Its been interesting watching the networks now. I can’t figure out who is more laudatory in the discussions on the networks, the Democrats or Republicans, of Barack Obama’s choices. There is hardly any debate around this. I want to see what you think of this, Robert Dreyfuss, Steve Zunes piece on Alternet saying Hilary Clinton “..allied herself with the Bush Administration and many of its most controversial actions, such as the 2003 invasion of Iraq, threats of war against Iran, support for Israel’s 2006 offensive against Lebanon and 2002 offensive in the West Bank, opposition to the International Criminal Court, attacks against the International Court of Justice, and support for the unrestricted export of cluster bombs and other anti-personnel munitions used against civilian targets”.

ROBERT DREYFUSS: Well, it is true that she supported all those things. In part, though, the trauma of 9/11 shifted politics radically toward the right and a lot of people–and I’m not excusing Clinton’s decisions, but a lot of people got caught up in that avalanche period. Obama distinguished himself by not being caught up in it. I think the fact that Clinton supported that long litany of things, is troubling to me and to many other people who are hoping for a clean break, to use a term of art of the Bush Administration got caught up in, to make a clean break with a lot of those past policies. I think its going to be difficult for him to execute that pivot. I think its going to be a battle on many of these issues with Senator Clinton to make sure that she stays on message.

AMY GOODMAN: You have written about it possibly being a moment for Barack Obama to distinguish himself outside of the Cabinet he has chosen, that people could possibly be expecting this.

ROBERT DREYFUSS: I think people put too much faith in Barack Obama the person. I think he is asked us to make the leap of faith in thinking he can be the embodiment of the change of people have been hoping for. In fact, it cannot be done by one person. In fact, it is not clear yet that Barack Obama is the person to bring that change. I think the message of this war cabinet he has named is that critics of the Bush Administration policy and people in the peace and justice movements are going to have to continue to mobilize, that it is not a time to relax. It is a time for demonstrations and letter writing and grassroots of activities to make sure what we hope to be more responsive to administration to those kinds of activities will start to pay attention to them or as with the Bush Administration, we were clearly knocking on a locked door.

A familiar coalition of hawks, hardliners, and neoconservatives expects Barack Obama's proposed talks with Iran to fail -- and they're already proposing an escalating set of measures instead. Some are meant to occur alongside any future talks. These include steps to enhance coordination with Israel, tougher sanctions against Iran, and a region-wide military buildup of U.S. strike forces, including the prepositioning of military supplies within striking distance of that country.

Once the future negotiations break down, as they are convinced will happen, they propose that Washington quickly escalate to war-like measures, including a U.S. Navy-enforced embargo on Iranian fuel imports and a blockade of that country's oil exports. Finally, of course, comes the strategic military attack against the Islamic Republic of Iran that so many of them have wanted for so long.

It's tempting to dismiss the hawks now as twice-removed from power: first, figures like John Bolton, Paul Wolfowitz, and Douglas Feith were purged from top posts in the Bush administration after 2004; then the election of Barack Obama and the announcement Monday of his centrist, realist-minded team of establishment foreign policy gurus seemed to nail the doors to power shut for the neocons, who have bitterly criticized the president-elect's plans to talk with Iran, withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq, and abandon the reckless Global War on Terrorism rhetoric of the Bush era.

"Kinetic Action" Against Iran

When it comes to Iran, however, it's far too early to dismiss the hawks. To be sure, they are now plying their trade from outside the corridors of power, but they have more friends inside the Obama camp than most people realize. Several top advisers to Obama -- including Tony Lake, UN Ambassador-designate Susan Rice, Tom Daschle, and Dennis Ross, along with leading Democratic hawks like Richard Holbrooke, close to Vice-President-elect Joe Biden or Secretary of State-designate Hillary Clinton -- have made common cause with war-minded think-tank hawks at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), and other hardline institutes.

LINK to complete article. By the way, reading the comments at the bottom of the article, whether they are pro or con the writer's position, is very educational.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum